Global Regulators Unite to Tackle AI Monopoly Concerns and Promote Fair Competition

Global regulators work together on effective AI competition

The competition watchdogs have vowed to protect open and fair competition practices amid the risks that the AI market could bring. Regulatory bodies from the US, UK and Europe have signed a joint agreement promising to protect consumers from unhealthy competition practices within the AI space. As generative AI continues to evolve and Big Tech companies invest heavily in their own models, the statement promises that the signatories will work "in the interests of fair, open, and competitive markets". The statement was signed by EU commissioner for competition Margrethe Vestager, UK Competition and Markets Authority CEO Sarah Cardell, US Federal Trade Commission chair Lina M Khan, and Jonathan Kanter, assistant attorney general, at the US Department of Justice. "Guided by our respective laws, we will work to ensure effective competition and the fair and honest treatment of consumers and businesses. This is grounded in the knowledge that fair, open, and competitive markets will help unlock the opportunity, growth and innovation that these technologies could provide," the statement reads. "We are working to share an understanding of the issues as appropriate and are committed to using our respective powers where appropriate." An inflection point for AI The statement also highlighted the current "technological inflection point" the world has reached with the evolution of AI, which can introduce new means of competing. "This requires being vigilant and safeguarding against tactics that could undermine fair competition," it said. "Given the speed and dynamism of AI developments, and learning from our experience with digital markets, we are committed to using our available powers to address any such risks before they become entrenched or irreversible harms." One major concern for AI competition is the concentrated control of key inputs such as specialised chips or data at scale. These could be in the hands of a small number of companies that could then be able to exploit their position of power. Another concern outlined in the statement is around companies' ability to extend their market power in AI-related markets due to the expansive use of foundation models. This can give tech giants the ability to control the channels of distribution of AI or AI-enabled services. In a statement from the UK's CMA, Cardell said AI is a borderless technology. "That's why we've come together with our EU and US partners to set out our commitment to help ensure fair, open and effective competition in AI drives growth and positive change for our societies," she said. In a post on X, Vestager said AI comes with "unique growth and innovation power that needs open and contestable markets to unlock its full potential". Competition heats up Following the mass adoption of OpenAI's ChatGPT, major tech giants were quick to enter the fray with their own large language models. From Google's Bard, which got off to a rocky start, to Meta's Llama, which just released its latest model, it is undeniable that this is Big Tech's current battleground. In fact, the UK's CMA has already launched a competition probe into Microsoft and Inflection AI earlier this month. But fair competition and open markets have been a concern within the tech world for many years and competition authorities around the world have been kept busy with investigations into potential unfair practices. In recent years, some major deals that have come under scrutiny include Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Amazon's plan to buy Roomba maker iRobot, and a multibillion-dollar merger between Adobe and Figma. While the Microsoft-Activision deal did eventually go through following several concessions, the regulatory pressure proved to be too much for Amazon, which walked back its plans to buy iRobot in January of this year. Similarly, Adobe and Figma abandoned their major deal following intense scrutiny from multiple competition watchdogs. Find out how emerging tech trends are transforming tomorrow with our new podcast, Future Human: The Series. Listen now on Spotify, on Apple or wherever you get your podcasts.

Global AI Regulation Heats Up: Watchdogs Unite, Tech Giants Push Back

Competition authorities from the United States, European Union and United Kingdom have joined forces to address potential antitrust issues in artificial intelligence (AI), while tech companies like Meta express concerns over stringent regulations in Europe. In a rare joint statement, top officials from the three regions on Tuesday (July 23) outlined concerns about market concentration and anti-competitive practices in generative AI -- the technology behind popular chatbots like ChatGPT. "There are risks that firms may attempt to restrict key inputs for the development of AI technologies," the regulators warned, highlighting the need for swift action in a rapidly evolving field. This move comes as AI development accelerates, with major tech companies pouring billions into the technology. Microsoft's $10 billion investment in OpenAI and Google's push with its Bard chatbot underscore the stakes. The regulators identified three main risks: control of critical resources, market power entrenchment, and potentially harmful partnerships. They're particularly wary of how existing digital market leaders might leverage their positions. The statement asserted that "the AI ecosystem will be better off the more that firms engage in fair dealing," emphasizing principles of interoperability and choice. While the authorities can't create unified regulations, their alignment suggests a coordinated approach to oversight. In the coming months, this could mean a closer examination of AI-related mergers, partnerships and business practices. The tech industry, already grappling with increased regulatory pressure, now faces a new front in the AI arms race. As the joint statement clarifies, regulators are committed to addressing potential risks "before they become entrenched or irreversible harms." Meta, Facebook's parent company, has raised alarm over the European Union's approach to regulating artificial intelligence. Rob Sherman, Meta's deputy privacy officer and vice president of policy, warned in a Financial Times interview that current regulatory efforts could potentially isolate Europe from accessing cutting-edge AI services. Sherman confirmed that Meta received a request from the EU's privacy watchdog to pause AI model training using European data voluntarily. While complying with this request, the company is concerned about the growing "gap in technologies available in Europe versus the rest of the world," he said. The EU's regulatory stance, including the new Artificial Intelligence Act, aims to govern the development of powerful AI models and services. However, Sherman cautioned that a lack of regulatory clarity could hinder the deployment of advanced technologies in Europe. This situation highlights the delicate balance between fostering innovation and ensuring responsible AI development. As tech companies race to commercialize AI products, they face constraints from the EU's digital rules, including data protection regulations like GDPR. Meta has already delayed the rollout of its AI assistant in Europe due to regulatory concerns. As the AI landscape evolves, the tech industry and EU regulators must find common ground to ensure Europe remains competitive in the global AI market while safeguarding user privacy and safety. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's new Labour government has signaled a measured approach to artificial intelligence regulation in Britain. The King's Speech, which outlined the government's legislative agenda, included plans to explore effective AI regulation without committing to specific laws. The government aims to establish appropriate legislation for developers of powerful AI models, building on the previous administration's efforts to position the U.K. as a leader in AI safety. This includes continuing support for the world's first AI Safety Institute, focused on "frontier" AI models like ChatGPT. While Starmer has promised new AI laws, his government is taking a careful, deliberate approach to their development. This strategy aims to balance innovation with responsible AI development, maintaining the U.K.'s attractiveness as a hub for AI research and investment. Republican lawmakers and industry experts advocated for a measured approach to AI regulation in finance during a House Financial Services Committee hearing. The four-hour session explored the complex intersection of artificial intelligence with banking, capital markets, and housing sectors. Committee Chair Patrick McHenry set the tone, emphasizing the need for careful consideration over hasty legislation. "It's far better we get this right rather than to be first," McHenry said, reflecting a sentiment echoed throughout the hearing. The discussion built upon a recent bipartisan report examining federal regulators' relationship with AI and its impact across various financial domains. Participants highlighted that existing regulations are largely "technology neutral," with many favoring a targeted, risk-based approach over sweeping changes. Industry representatives, including Nasdaq's John Zecca, praised the National Institute of Standards and Technology's AI risk management framework. However, concerns were raised about overly restrictive approaches, such as the European Union's upcoming AI Act, which some fear could stifle innovation.

US and European antitrust regulators agree to do their jobs when it comes to AI

The watchdogs have pinpointed 'shared principles to protect competition and consumers.' Regulators in the US and Europe have the "shared principles" they plan to adhere to in order to "protect competition and consumers" when it comes to artificial intelligence. "Guided by our respective laws, we will work to ensure effective competition and the fair and honest treatment of consumers and businesses," the , , and the UK's said. "Technological inflection points can introduce new means of competing, catalyzing opportunity, innovation and growth," the agencies said in . "Accordingly, we must work to ensure the public reaps the full benefits of these moments." The regulators pinpointed fair dealing (i.e. making sure major players in the sector avoid exclusionary tactics), interoperability and choice as the three principles for protecting competition in the AI space. They based these factors on their experience working in related markets. The agencies also laid out some potential risks to competition, such as deals between major players in the market. They said that while arrangements between companies in the sector (which are ) may not impact competition in some cases, in others "these partnerships and investments could be used by major firms to undermine or co opt competitive threats and steer market outcomes in their favor at the expense of the public." Other risks to competition flagged in the statement include the entrenching or extension of market power in AI-related markets as well as the "concentrated control of key inputs." The agencies define the latter as a small number of companies potentially having an outsized influence over the AI space due to the control and supply of "specialized chips, substantial compute, data at scale and specialist technical expertise." In addition, the CMA, DOJ and FTC say they'll be on the lookout for threats that AI might pose to consumers. The statement notes that it's important for consumers to be kept in the loop about how AI factors into the products and services they buy or use. "Firms that deceptively or unfairly use consumer data to train their models can undermine people's privacy, security, and autonomy," the statement reads. "Firms that use business customers' data to train their models could also expose competitively sensitive information." These are all fairly generalized statements about the agencies' common approach to fostering competition in the AI space, but given that they all operate under different laws, it would be difficult for the statement to go into the specifics of how they'll regulate. At the very least, the statement should serve as a reminder to companies working in the generative AI space that regulators are keeping a close eye on things, even amid rapidly accelerating advancements in the sector.

US, UK, and EU finally come together to prevent AI monopoly (catastrophic market failure, not the game)

Everyone agrees an all-powerful AI run by one company would be a bad idea. As we've continued developing AI to boldly go where nobody has gone before and where many of us never wanted to go in the first place, we regular folk have had plenty of concerns. Whether it's the potential for AI job takeovers or deepfake misinformation, there's plenty to worry about. However, one concern that's not been discussed so much is the risk of an AI monopoly. Thankfully, the US, UK, and EU are on the ball enough to see this risk and are now coming together to prevent it. Four governing bodies spanning the US, UK, and EU, have signed a joint statement which, according to the UK government, "affirms commitment to unlock the opportunity, growth and innovation that AI technologies could provide with fair and open competition." That's the positive spin, anyway. But we all know the flipside to competition is monopoly, and it seems that this is precisely what these agencies are hoping to prevent. The four agencies in question -- the CMA (UK Competition and Markets Authority), EC (European Commission), DoJ (US Department of Justice), and FTC (US Federal Trade Commission) -- have a few specific monopolistic risks in mind. One such risk that these governing bodies identify is the "concentrated control of key inputs," such as chips, data centres, and specialist expertise. Now, it might be because I'm a PC Gamer, but when I hear this I think of Nvidia. When we have popular industry experts such as Jim Keller saying that "Nvidia is slowly becoming the IBM of the AI era," we can't ignore that Nvidia is the closest thing we have to a monopoly (without actually being a monopoly) in the AI chip market. However, and as I argued when reporting on Keller's statement, monopolies rarely remain thus. And if we throw in some pro-competitive aid such as this international statement signifies? Well, things might just turn out okay after all. But that's enough positivity, let's return to the doom and gloom. The joint statement also mentions the risk of "entrenching or extending market power in AI-related markets," presumably referring to Big Tech companies that already have monopolies in certain areas. It goes on to mention the risk that such large firms would have "the ability to protect against AI-driven disruption, or harness it to their particular advantage, including through control of the channels of distribution of AI or AI-enabled services to people and businesses." As an analogy, think Google's control over search, but apply this to the burgeoning AI industry. The joint statement also mentions the risk of "arrangements involving key players," ie, good, old-fashioned market collusion. Which has me thinking, actually: Although AI is new, are these market risks not the same ones we've always faced, at any point in time in capitalism's history, in any industry? The answer, I think, is a little yes and a little no. Yes, the risk of monopoly and the way it might manifest is the same as ever, but with AI the problem could occur much quicker and on a much larger scale. At least, so we're supposed to believe if we buy into all the talk of the "next industrial revolution." I suppose the argument might go as follows: AI isn't just like any other technology, it's going to cut across and affect all industries to a much greater degree than any other technology since the industrial revolution. So, who controls AI will control not just a market segment but the entire market. Furthermore, because AI improves itself exponentially quickly this is going to come about quicker than we can regulate. That's certainly a scary prospect, and now that I've put words to the thought I'm starting to think the CMA, EC, DoJ, and FTC are treading the right tracks, here. Let's just hope their talk of "fair dealing," "interoperability," and "choice" are backed up by action, because as it stands all we really have is a statement of principle -- a valiant principle, but just a principle nonetheless. Principles, and the serious thought required to come up with and enforce them, are what we direly need as AI continues along its seemingly inevitable path. It doesn't even seem like the big players in the tech industry are on the same page when it comes to AI and its role in the market. We can see this clearly in Elon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI, in which he claims that the AI company was supposed to be working to help humanity rather than chase profits. Forget what AI companies are doing, is there even widespread agreement on what they they should be doing? Of course, none of this might matter if the AI market's built on a bubble that's bound to bust. We've already seen Sequoia analyst David Cahn (via Tom's Hardware) point out the stupendous amount of money the AI industry needs to accrue to essentially pay off its investment debts. Then again, I'm not sure a bubble of this size bursting would be much of a better alternative to AI monopoly. Both would suck. I'll leave you with that cheery thought.

US, European Regulators Sign Joint Statement on Effective AI Competition

(Reuters) - Regulators in the United States, European Union and Britain have signed a joint statement to ensure effective competition in the artificial intelligence space, setting out principles to protect consumers. "Guided by our respective laws, we will work to ensure effective competition and the fair and honest treatment of consumers and businesses," said a joint statement from the European Commission, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday. (Reporting by Yadarisa Shabong in Bengaluru; Editing by Krishna Chandra Eluri)

US, European regulators sign joint statement on effective AI competition

(Reuters) - Regulators in the United States, European Union and Britain have signed a joint statement to ensure effective competition in the artificial intelligence space, setting out principles to protect consumers. "Guided by our respective laws, we will work to ensure effective competition and the fair and honest treatment of consumers and businesses," said a joint statement from the European Commission, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday.